Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • BergerLuckman SCOR

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous TF3X3lm
    27 views22 pages
    first article

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    first article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    27 views22 pages

    BergerLuckman SCOR

    Uploaded by

    Anonymous TF3X3lm
    first article

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    Berya > Laclerms Ne Sel Cotiuchor J Rrbhy bed), Now tel (406) Introduction: The Problem of the Sociology of Knowledge ‘The basic contentions of the argument ofthis beak are implicit in its tle and subtitle, namely, that reity is socially constructed snd thatthe sociology of knowledge must analyze the procases in ‘which this occurs. Te ley terms in these contentions are “rai” tnd “Inowledge” terms that are not only cuent in. eveydiy speech, bat that have behind them 2 long history of piloophiel Ingucy. We need not enter here into 2 dscusion of the semsntic Intiates of either the everyday ofthe philosophical usage of thse, tems. It wll be enoogh, for our purposes, to deine “reality” as @ quality appertaining to phenomena that we recognize a having & Teng independent ‘of our own volition (we cannot “wish them sway"), and to define “knowledge” atthe crinty that phenomens are real and that they poses specie characteris. Tt i in this (admittedly simplistic) sease thatthe terms have slevace both to the man inthe street and tothe philosopher. The man in the street inhabits a world that i “real” to him, abit in diferent degress, and he “know,” with diferent degrees of confidence, that this ‘world posses such and rach choracteristice. The philosopher, of oure, wil rage questions about the ultimate status of both thi “reality” and this “knowledge” What i real? How is one to know? ‘These are among the most ancient questions not only of palespb- ical inguiy proper, but of human thought ae such Pei for this rexion the intsion ofthe scilogist into this timchonored inte Tectal testy is likely to rate the eyebrows of the man in the street and even more likely to enage the pilsnphe, Tei, ther fore important that we clanify a the beginning the sense in which we tse these terms in the contest of sociology, and that we Samed stely disclaim any pretension to the eflect that scaly ha an lnwer to these ancient philosophical preseeupaton Tf we were going to be meticulous in the ening argument, we would put quotation marks around the two slowementoned teams pny time we uscd hum, but this would be syistically awkward, ‘To speak of quotation marks, however, may give a cue to the perl manner in which these terme appear in = sociological con fext, One could say tint the sociological understanding of “reality” and “knowledge” fils somewhere fn the mile between that of the ‘man inthe stret ad tat ofthe philosopher. Te man ia the street des not ordinal trouble himself aboot what "real to him and bout hat he “Knows” unlest e is stopped short hy some sort of problem, He takes hig “alt” and his “knowlege” Foe granted. The Sociologist cannot do tis, if only because of his sptematic ware: rn of the fat that men in the sacet take quite diferent "alts" for granted as betweca ane sciety and anor. The sociologist is forced by the very logic of his discipline to ask, if noting ele, whether the diference between the\ two “realitis” may not be ‘ondestond in tation to various difeences beeen the two sot tics. The plilasopher, on theater Kind, & profesionaly obligated to take nothing for granted, and to obtain maximal clip as 2 the stimatesntar of what the ma In the tet blew tobe "elity” and “knowledge” Put deren, the philosopher i driven to decide ‘whcie the quotation marks are in ord and where they may safdy De omitted, that to dierentate betwen valid and Invalid ase ious abnut the wold. Thi the sociologist cannot posibly Jo. Logically i nt stylistically, he s stuck wit Phe quottin mats. "For eximple, the man ig the street may believe that he posessct “freedom ofthe wll” ae that he is therefore "esposible™ far his the some time denying this "freon" and this “respon ‘tw infants and Iuntic. The pilecophe, by whatever Xs, wl inure into the ontologial snd epistemolagal stats ofthese conceptions. Te mam frac? What i responsi? Where fare the fimite of responsibilty? How can one know there thing? ‘Ad soon. Needles to sy, the sociologist fin no peti to supply answers t0 these questions. What he can and must do, however, to ack how ite that the notin of “Heedam” has ome tobe taken for granted in ane ciety and oot in another, how it "ality" is ‘maintained in the ane roi sad how, even more intersting), this "ety may once agin be lst to 38 individ o to au aie calla Sociological interest in questions of “reality” and “hnowledge” is hor inital juste by he fat oftheir sei relativity. What i “sell” toa Tibetan tpouk may not be “teal” to an Amereay busines snencoucries 5 mye ee ana en eee SR is atest ene polenta er totetomr a Lee vinonoest Sociol beta aceracs opm iiesaeen Ee ae tit Sot tgirae ornare gue aera ieee ares Sede ncrtta wets act aie tee oe Seesbered harm aoe nes Sia a tare sete wanna mer det Sevier eae kee Ege oo Sia aoe Leioec areca Sans comer Scone raeree | ey teie cas Sora wOThis undestading ofthe proper fel ofthe saciloy of kno cage dfs fom what has gear been mesot by the dace Xince it vas Bist so cae sme forty yas ago. Before we ein oor stat argent therefore, i wil be wsefal to lnk bil a fhe Previous development of the Usipine and to expleste Za vint ‘aya why, we eft tact dete om team "sovology of knowledge” (Wisesocologie) was sige’ by Max Sdcee Te tine whe Suan tegaeeace Ge many, and Scheler wer « phone, Tice te ets re te ‘important for an ndentnding ofthe gens and fare deen ‘ent ofthe new dcpline. The sclogy of howlelge elie Jn pari station of Genan itllta) istry sit 3 ahdnopbol comet. Wil he new dpe we run Intedyeed ia legal context proper paricalry fa te Englshapatng wont cndnl ty be sake the blons ofthe patil itlctual station fom which it ene As 4 fo ‘4 “Tue Soci, CONSTRUCTION OF BEALETE snl he ology of tl enn! 2 pep, cern mong soioglt 2 age, who di not share the portato lem that toubld Geman thinker in the apace This ae pevally tue of Ameconsoclgis, who fret the main looked Upon the discipline ss marginal spoaly with a pertent Eero pean favor, More heparan, howsey, the conning Linkage ot the sociology of knowledge witht orginal contltion of prob Tes has ben a thor weaknes even where ere hasbeen 3 iat inti dpi Tow he xf kos hy en looked upon, by it protagonist and by the move ce le ndirent sociologia publica eg, a sot fsoilgil gloss on thei tory of iene. This bas resulted in considerable myopia tepding {he poten then sgnifeance ofthe socisouy of knowledge “There have been diferent defntions ofthe natere and sope of the seilogy of knoe. Indeed tight alos be said thatthe Nison-of the subsicipline th far har Been the history oft ar cut dents. Neverthe, thee tas been gencal apserent 0 the eet that the sociology of knowledge i cnceaed with the lationship between human thought and the scl context within tes, Teimay ths be sid thatthe eodology of knowlege CGrottute the socolgial locos of a mmch more geneal prob lem, that ofthe ecstential ctemination (Seiupebundenhet of thoveht at sch, Althoogh her the sol factor & concnated ‘pon, the theoreti icles ase sid t those that have aren when other factor awh atthe histor, the poeholgal or the bicdogeal) have bon proposed a dtenmnative of han thought. Inall the cars the general problem har been the extent to which ght reese or independent of The proposed detente tors Tei ily tht the prominence of the general problem in recent German pony far i ros in the wart acomoltiog of ie foveal scolahip that was one ofthe gresttfntellecttl ft oF the nineteenth century in Germany. Ina way emporled in any ther ped of intlictial hit the pst th alls ameing ‘arity of fos of tought as “made present” to the contempe F277 tind through the efforts of sctife istoral chor, Tes hard to dapat the cai of Geman scholarship to the pry ‘Poston in tn enterprise, It shuld, consequent ot sure ws thatthe theoreti problem throm xp by Helter shoo be most sharply seed in Gemany. Ts problem can be deseo asthe veto of relativity. The epistemological dinerson of the problem ‘On the empire oe ements sate a painstakingly as posible the concrete rcationships between thought and its histori situations. If this inlerpetation i or rect the sociology of knowledge takes yp a problem exgially paste by htorial scholaship~in a. mover foes, to be foe, ‘but with an intrest in sential the se qoestons? ‘Nelthr the geneal problem ors mcower es is new. An avorenest ofthe social foundations of vals snd worldviews cn be found io antiguy. At least as far back a the Enlightenment this auercness cyptalzed into a. major thene of modem Westen thought. It woul ths be possible to make a goed ese fra nmbet of “genealogies” forthe central problem of the sornlogy of now age It may even be sid thatthe problem i contained in ocr fa Pascal's famous statement that what is uth on one side of the Pyrenees i moron the otbet.* Yet the inmedbteintllecteal ant. celents of the stology of knowledge ate thee developments in nineteenth entry German thought—the Maia, the Nitschean, and the histori. tis fom Mazz that the sociology of knowlege derived its root popostiontat taps conciousness i deerme by his socal ‘ing? To te sure hres been mach Se To fst what Hed AF defemination Marx had in mind, Tt safety say that mach of the great “rrugle with Mara” that charactriznd not only the be- imings ofthe sociology of Enowledge but the "dasical age" of so. og mene! partly mie he ao We, kc and Pareto) was relly astrvele witha faulty interpre fnon of Mas by iateeday Mast: Tt popetion gs pra bility when we rece that was only in tgsa that the very impxtant Econ ane Philoophieal sof ag we dixovered and only after World War I Ht the fl implations of this ceiscovery could be worked out in Marx ressath, Be this at may, te sociology of knowledge inherited from Marr not only the sarpet formulation of ity central problem bat so tome of it hey concepts, among which should be mentioned patteny the con. coo “deco” (ies sing a weapon or stil interst) and “fale conscousnes” (@hougt that i aenatel om he Fl focal beng of the taker fom te wal “The sociology of knowlege hss been patel fascinated by Manes twin concept of “substracture/supestuetar” (Unter! 6 "soc. enwsERCrIa OF HEALEY Uberha). tis here particularly that controversy has raged about the comeetintrpreation of Ma's own thought. Later Marin In tended to identify the “subsite” with economic structure ‘tout cour, of which the “supestrctre” was then supposed to be 8 direct “rection” (thus Leni, for intance). Tes quite cle now that this misrepresents Mae's thought, a the eseotilly mechani tie rather than diletzal character of this Kind of economic dete. ‘in should make one suspect. What conceined Marx wa that Thome thought i fond inhuman aetiity (“hbor,” in the widest sense ofthe word) and inthe soca cations brought about by his Activity. “Substroctoe” and “sypeestorre” are best understood if ‘one views them as, respectively, human activity and, the world podced by that ativity® Tn any case, the fondammental“subiemper Streire™ scheme has Been take over in varios forms by the 0- Ciology of knowedge, beginning with Schelt, always with an un Alestanding that thee ig some st of ratoncip between thought tnd an "undeyng” rer other than thought. The fascination of the schome prealed despite the fat that much ofthe secolgy of knowledge ws explicitly formulated opposition to Marm and that diferent postions fae Inen taken witha, i ceeding the nature of the veltionship between the two components of the [Nietaschen ideas were less explicitly continned nthe sociology of Knowledge bu hey felong very much to its general inteletal bekground and to the “mood” within which ie arse. Nietzsche antiidaliom, despite the dlerences in content not unlike Mar’ {in form, aed sdition perspectives oa Iman thought 2. an instrument ia the strugle for survival and power" Nietache de ‘eloped is own theory of "fale onacousness” i his analyses the social significance of deception and seltdecption, eof ilision sa neesaryconiton of ie, Nictesche’s concept of “resentment” 354 generative factor foe certain types of human thought as tken ‘ver dicey by Scheer, Most general, though, one can sy that the sociology of Enowlage represents a specie application of what Nietasche aptly called the "tof mista” istoricgm especially 36 eapresed in the work of Willen Dit they, immediately preceded the socilogy of Lsowiedge? The done ‘nan heme te wat an verwbelming sense OF the relativity of I perspectives on human events that ofthe inevitable histo of Truman thought. The hati instence that wo historia sites rtooucrto 7 tom could be undead esp ns Onn tems cul rely Ye {cated nto an amps onthe se stutn of age Coe Sin hort cnet sacha “stanoal detain (Saal rsebndenht) aod “eat ae (St Leben) cel be Fey tai a ring tte Ser ea” th fre genrlly, the hott hag of he scolgy of bose. sce rede the ler toward song ses hte sed the copayment af en een tral methods eee cot at so mode a is marly ae ee ot aes scat ‘Sch intra othe elf tno, ad in bg cal quetios general, war ecenal pst Sate eng s pectin aim a ht epi ateploy that weld Hance the sty of {oxi hina and val lated vw Te seta owe watt sees intent tds ss fs eae pe ting the casing say of the iba ed yt Srvio tae te vel psp tet ond pec Sceet s Gilg of knowlege’ ins wey vl ses ence, tnd of very spe hap tt Inline wit ths ent Schl bly of tooledge& oct neue mtd: Scheer arged ek the reatohip Tetveen “hal ctor” (deletes) ad Ye eto Re fete), teas ht a ay veminet of the Marten “7 ‘Rpt schon, ar mecly 8 epee Ta the “al facto” regulate th coon and whch coin hel ae ton” can sppet in sony, bt canwot act he cote fhe let otber word ty astra te precies (Dee) but ot the nate (Sac) of Kes The scopy af Howse then, isthe proce by which the scones set of ieationl contents to fe she thing deo hn the Contents themes are Independent of etna caste Sd ths inseeuble steep stay I one ay darbe Eder metal eal eto they sip foe aon of eat bat ol ete tea flee ae ate ‘Wihin this Inteoally (a inevishy) modest femevork sce ame a ensdable dt the sumer in ie iman lovee ocd by sce. He copied at han Xowiee gen i sosty sane pt neal pence roving the ater witht order of meaning. Thi ond, although Kirrenthe to feta ecbistoral stuston, pp: tothe Jada a the raul way of ooking tthe wor. Sehler ele ths the cstweostual word ko oaimotrioe Wt. ‘chauung) of soy, a cone! Oot ays Be red 2 ca tl forthe scr a owes Fallowing Se" “mention of the socioey of Browse, thse ain ate Coma, en hay Scope and sppicabiy ef the nw pine Ont of this eat fee one formulation that mared the tanspoxtion of thes cology of hoowlege ito a more nao stcilgial conte ‘Theme fomultion vu he one neh the sly of Ent Cie are inthe Englshopeling wot Thee the formation ty Kad Mannheim Tae to sy when ellos today tik ef the ology of now, poor con, hey ely do 30 es of Mantes ‘ominton of In Amer soley 13 i “edly inelighle one ees on the aceny in Enhth of ‘taly the whole of Manna’ we (ome of which, inde, ‘ct wnftn ir Eich, ding the pov tannin ms echng i gad afer the avent of Nac ip Germany. oF was ong fut i reviodEnglth veins), while Ser wok in he soe Sy st knw has vena tsa fo date. Apt fom {hk "aifuson acto, Manncnvs work es Batened. with hloopbiea“tugage” than Seles. Ths & epecally te of ‘Manners later tings and canbe sce if ne compat the Ege 1h venion of his main work, Idecogy and Utopia with ts Coe ma original, Mano thos became the more ongea” e for vology, yen thw ete of or not very infested in is sppreach ‘Mnahci’s undead of the sxlagy of inovldge wat smuch mae fceaching Hon Scheer psy Bente te con: feat nt Nm ws oe poet wk, Sy wa hee nig not only the appearance but ae the Conlent of hima Warton wth ike spies of mathematics and a last prof the mata iones The soclogy of Knowle thar bee a ptive method forthe stub of stay feta imam thei Signifermt Mannbtin's key concem was with the phenome son of iesog. He ding becca the gas, thet, and the general concepts of ideolagy—ideology costing only amooyerat ° 4 spent ofan opponents to ey st contig the sith pact dg (oes io Ssh snd {i,t Manchin ast hog bees han tio ech ete oe eft ft om apt we, Wi a ea ; of the sociology of knowledge is teachetthe understanding that to haan hgh (il ony he aemetent ee inmane to the eugene af near eae eke Sasn of the tea of elegy Manthes st ee ‘Scot lon fom he canto pated wat leet ‘2 genes poten of etemlogy se hae eee, ‘ibweth Manna 0 at tee Shee aise ty tos eto wa uncon ir te pesca ont stinking snoed fod him He coed Oe te ane {in coatradistinction to “relativism” to denote the epistemological Rerpetve of hi sig of Kmsledge ot Conca thoi ttre he scott eat: tt et ton int knofcge mt shoe te kone fo a tion. The Wifaacs OF Dithey is probably of great importance at {ie pot In Mined Rowe eben of Meee tive bythe a ftom Be edt sey, Ment iced tat ieegsng nes, ee hy cold etna Sted completely, could be mitigated by the ostenatic analy of many a pale ofthe ag eal usd pro Saat Se ong Sel wel pais wih hs eccamtn of die pepe Te the uk ofthe ecto trolls eh asf es ‘Spi oe qc oy et edges Msbakin bated tt ait sc an Yue capacity thas to tansceed ther own’ ranewpofion Te Bede myo hope i te “oak sna Cakes Ufatchnebnde Ilse ton Sock he aa An of metal aon at he eine ee ay ey tua ch (ie Hedogs)pedcs wd ioe sly bt wih ene egy Bar he dea hea Sey iat cl toy, the Shove ems cm nwo wy do siher Scher oe Meoahcim' edncepton ot Seba 12 nonige. Tiss not ou intention ere. We have merely indisted Some Key fears of the two conceptions, which fe been apy allt, rexpectively, the “moderate” apd “radial” conceptions of the Sociology of Koowledge What remarkable is thatthe subsequent evelopment ofthe sxiology of Knowledge bas, to a large cate, consisted of ctiques and modientions of these two conceptions. ‘As we hve slieady punted ovt, Mannbeim’ formulstion of the Soriblgy of knowledge as coninacd to st the terms of reference for the discipline ie's deftive manner, prticolaly in English speaking soe "The most important American sociologist to have pid serous attention tothe sociology of knowledge has been Robert Merton.!* Hig discussion of the dicpline, which covers two chapters of his rnajor work, hat seved as a uzeful introduction to the Bld for Such American sociologists as have been intrested in i. Mé ‘onstructed a paradigm for the sociology of knowledge, restating ite major themes in compresed and coherent form, This con Strcton i intresting Becrse it sels to integrate the approach of the sociology of knowledge with that of strctra-funetional theory ‘Merton's own conceps of “manife” and “stent” fictions ae ap plied tothe sphere of iestion, the ditinction being made between the intended, concious factions of ess, and the whintended, wm canicous ones. While Metan concentra on the work of Mann Ini, who wat foe him the soiologit of knowlege par exclence, Ihe tresed the sigifcance of the Durkheim schoal std ofthe work ‘of Pitirim Soroki. Tes interesting that Nxtom apparently filed to see the relevance to the soiloy of knowledge ofeetain important evelopments io American social papehology, sich op reference ‘group theory, which be discuss in a different part Of the sme stork “Taleott Parsons has also commented on the sociology of know! cdge" This comment, however, Timid mainly to 2 ctigue of Mannbeim and. does’ not seek an integation of the diepline within Parsons! own Shortie eytem, Tm the latte, %0 be sire, the "problem of the role of Sess” is anal at lengthy bat in 3 frame of reference quite diferent from that of either Schler’s ot Mannbicims rocilogy of knowledge” We would, teeter, ven: ture to say tat neither Merton nor Parsons has gone i any deine aay Bejond the sociology of knowledge a formulated by Mi Incim. The same can be id of ther citi, To mention only the prrcoveron a "ot vos one, Wig Mil da ith he oc Sik ni ale tng at nt en ee oe ‘et ontig theta Joona ‘An interesting effort to integrate the sociology of inowledge with te Muha Whe tose a Tees ‘ideas and their social context, ot Se siete ity UE ovis that we Bar peal craven of he hry ofthe solo of tnowee Fu ten s conired by thee a dave limited ounces to devsopoeat Bat 0 to, aS er in tha 0 9 Spa aed oe eth bane “clog of eee” i is also te of Stark, who subiled hit major work on the sociology ff knowiedze “An Essay in Aid of a Decper Understanding of the story of kos.” In other words, the interest of the sociology of Iavowledge has been epistemological questions on the theoretical est, on avestions of itellectusl story on the enpiis eel 1 We would emphasine that we have no reservations. whtsocve bout the saliity and importance of thee to sels of questions However we regnd it 2s unfortonate that this particular const lation has dominated the socilogy of knowlege sofa. We would frgue tat, oF 4 ral, the full theoreti signicance of the so ‘ology of knowledge has been obscured “To inclade pistemoogieal quetions concerning the vailty of 7 silage now in the sociology of knowlege is somewhat ike tying to posh busin which one is iding, To bese, the 20 Colo of knowlege, like all empiral dieplines that accumulate ‘evidence concerning. the rcativty and determination of man thought, leds toward epistemologial questions concerning soca ‘ogy tect ar well ar any other sient body of Knowledge. Ae we Teave remarked before, in this the sociology of knowlege plays 3 prt sitar to history. psychology, and biology, to mention only the hee most important epi esis Hat have wed trouble for epistemology. The logical stctre.of this trouble is basically the same in all eases How can T be te, 9, of my soclegca analysis of American middleclass mores in view of the fet tht the eitegries I nse Tor this analyse ate conditioned by hitoily el tise forms of thought, that I-myalf and everthing I think dete: mined by my genes andl by me ingrown fostlity to ny flee, nd that, to cp eal, 2mm myslfa member af the American middle ee Far be it ftom us to brush aside such questions, AM we would contend here that these questions are ot themselves prt of the ‘pica dicipline of soiology. They propely belong to the meth ‘logy of the socialsciences, an enterpse that belongs to philoso. phy and is by deBaiten other ha secilay, which & indeed a Dhjeet of is ings. The eocilogy of bowled, slog with the other epistemangial troublemakers among the cimpte seine, ‘vill "food problems to this methodological inguiy t cannot solve xe problem within ts own proper frame of reference, ‘We thezfore exclde from the sociology uf knowledge the epi temologcl and methodological problems that bothered both of it Penooucror By pital oe metedsepe oan see ee ‘olga ats in the gy af noe a ira, We mie the mag of ote ‘e must also, however, redefine the task of the socio esrienpmaias aati ten Sinaia canara es ‘dp bs been concred ith nicht hte. the Siesta oie pn, mes Sopeccirareceennaaiion et Fo ent pe ny oe es aa tl ea itt th meting oie care a uae eae Sorte Retuiens sae ager si tl cs rat sete org sto oe oy areas Someone “Yona none way or sae Pt difscath se nico 4 ‘mr SAL CORTRRUCTION OF RLY concerned with the theotetial interpretation of the world, but ‘ceybody liver ina world of some sot. Not ony is the fox on Theoretical thought undaly restrictive for the sociology of Know ‘lee ti also unsatisfactory because even this part of socially avi- ble “Inowledge” cannot be fully undertod if if not placed in the framework of a more general analy of “knowledge.” “To exaggerate the importance of theoretical thought in society and history isa natuel fing of theories I is then all the more incr fo comet his intellecuaitie misapprehension. The theo retical formulations of wality, whether they be seentife et philo fophical or even eytholgial, do not exaust what i eat” for the rmumber ofa society. Since this 50, the soilogy of knowlege ‘st ft ofall concer its with what people “know” 2s “reality” in thee fenday,non- oF pretheortcal lives. In other words come ‘mongense "znovlege” rather than “des must be the central focus forthe sociology of knowledge. ti precisely his “enowlelge” that conetituts the fabric of meanings without which no sotety could east ‘The saciology of knowledge, therefore, most concer itselé with ‘he social construction of reality. The analysis of the theoretical artcaation ofthis reality wil etn conings to bea prt of this oneer, but not the most important part. Ie will be clear that, ‘erite the exclusion of the epitemlogcal/methodologcl prob: lem, wha we ae suggesting here its farreachingtedeiition ofthe scope of the sociology of knowiedge, moch wiler than what fas Iithecto Been understood as this disepine “The qustion aries as to what theoretical ingredients ought to De added to the scology of knowledge to permit it redefinition in the above sense, We ove the fundamental insight into the neces ti, fo i eeiton to Aled Set, Thoxpoot his, wo, th philosopher and. as sodalogst, Schutz concentrated on the structure of the commonsense wort of everday life. though hie himself didnot elaborate a sociology of knowledge, he cleaty sv what this discipline would have to focus on All typifestions of commonsense thinking are themseivesin- ‘gal elements ofthe concrete historia sociocalial Lebene welt within which they eval ae taken for grantol and as socially approved. Thee structure determines among. other things the soil ditibation of knowledge and its ratty and emooveron % scleance to the concrete sacl eavronment of concrete group [28 conte Nitra station Hew the lina a lems of relativim, historicom, and of the socalled sociology of knowiedge® And again: Knonldge is socially disttbutod and the mechanism of this distibtion, eon be made the subject mater of 2 sociolgial listing ‘True, we have 2 scaled socslgy of Knowledge, Yet, with very few cxeptions, the diiline thus misnamed ‘has approached the problem of the ses itbution of Ino celge merely from the angle of fh ideclogicl foundation of truth in its dependence upon soci and, epeily, economic ‘conditions, oe fom that Of the socal implctions of educa: tion, oF that ‘of the socal role ofthe man of knowledge. Not sociologists bat economists and philosophers have studied some ‘oF the many other theoretical aspects ofthe problem ile we would not give the cet ple to the social dtib tion of knowledge that Schutz implies be, we ace with bi eit cam of “the dsipline the misamed” ad have dv om him case notion ofthe manner in wich the tak ofthe soilogy of ‘novlage mit be redefined, tn the following condestont we are Inaviy dependent om Schute in the prcegomenn concerning the foundations of knowlege in everday life and grey indebted to Tis wotk in varios impovtant pacer of cor main agument there afer (Our sntbropoogeal prepositions are stongly inueneed by Mars, epecily is ely writings, and by the antvopalegcel Iplicatons drawn fom” human biology ty Heath, Plesour, ‘told Gehlen and other, Our view of the mle scl rey § sally indebted to Divi and his school in French vocloy, though we hae modal the Darkcimian shear of society by he inrection of dlc! spective dared om Mar and an cmplisis on the constitution of social rally though subetive mening: deed fom ‘Weber™ Our scalycologial eth Toston, especialy important for the ataae ofthe ntesn- ‘iow of soi rey, ar geal nfaneed by Googe Herbert Mead and some developments of hie work by the soci symbolic ‘etonit school Of American sociales We sl ladies i the 6 [HE SOC CONSERUETION OF REALITY footnotes how these various ingredients are wed in our theoretical formation. We fully realize, of couse that in this use we a not ‘and cannot be fithfol to the origins] intentions of these several streams of social theory themselves, Bot, as we have alveady stated, ‘ur purpose here isnot exegetical, nor even sythess forthe ake of yates. We are fll aware that, m variour places, we do velence to certain thinkers by integrating hep thought into @ therebial formation that some of them might have found quite alien. We ‘would say in justifeation that histori pattode ie nt inde & ‘enti virtue, We may cite here some tenes by Talcott Parsons (about whove theory we lave serious misgivings, but whose itege tive fatention ve fly share) ‘The primary aim of the stu i not to determine and state in ‘summary form what these writers sid or believed about the subject they wrote about. Nor is it to inquire dleetly with fefeence to each proposition of thie “theres” whether what they have axis tenable inthe light of present socilogal and ‘elated Knowledge... It i a stody! in socal theory, not ‘erie, Is interest i nat in the seprate and disacte popes tions to be found in the works ofthese mea, but in single body of astematic theoreti reasoning Or purpose, indeed, isto engge in “systematic theoretical rea soning." ‘ Te wil aedy be evident tht our redefinition of its nature nd seope would move the sociology of knowledge from the pesiphery to the very center of socilogiealtheary. We may assure the reader that we have no vested interest in the label "tology of know cog” Ii rather our ndestanding of sociological theory that Ted 1 to the sociology of knowledge and guided the manner in which sve wee to redefine its problems and tts, We caw best describe the path along which we se ou by reference to two ofthe most fost ‘nd moet neti “marching order foe sociology. ‘ne was given by Durkheim in The Ruler of Soeologiel Method, the ather by Weber in Wirschole und Geselucoft. Dukhcim tells, ‘ws: "The fst and most fundamental rule is: Consider soca facts” 1 things" And Weber observes: “Both fo sociology in the przent ‘case, and for history, the objet of eopetion i the subjective mean ingeumpler of action. These two statements are not contradic: tory. Society does indaed possess objective facticity. And society i rerecoucnos ” indeed built up by activity that express sbjetive mean inded bit wp by att int epee sb ing. And, Daatkhcin knew the latter, just as Weber Kc the ' precisely the dual character of society in terms of ob ticity and subjective meanig that makes its “realy sul ener," to use another key term of Dustin's The cent que tion for sociological theory can then be puta follows: How 1s it posible that sobjectie: meanings Become abjective facta? Os, dn tems appropiste to the aforementioned theoretical potions How ist posite that human activity (Hndeln) should produce a wor of things (choses)? In other words, an adequate understand: ng ofthe “reality cui generis” of society requis a inguity into the ‘manner in which thie reality i constructed. This inguin, ve mie tain, i the task ofthe sociology of knowledge. a 1. The Foundations of Knowledge in Everyday Life 1. THE REALITY OF EVERYDAY LIFE Since our purpose in this teat ig a sociological analysis of the reality of everyday life, more preity, of that guides Bl we se ely tna SET may appent in various theoretical perspectives to ineleceas, we must begin by a clean ofthat reality 2s i s ‘llable 19 the commonsense ofthe ordinary members of soci. How that commonsense reality may be infenced by the theo retical constructions of inteectale and eter mechanls of iss is 2 further question, Oure is thue am entre that, although theo retical in character, is geared to the undestanding ofa reality that forms the subject matter of the empiial siente of sociology, tat fn the world of everday life. Te should be event, then, that ove purpose is not to enage in philomphy. Al the sume, if the reality of everday life i to be un ‘erstood, account must be taken of itinse character before we fan, proceal with sociological analysis prop. Everyday life pee sent itll a a reality interpreted by men and subjectively mean ingful to thom sr 2 coherent world, Ar socologits we tke thie reality a the object of our analyses. Within the frime of reference of eg a epi mc pte we ty "a take ar dats paricnlar phenomena a¥sing within withowt farther ‘oquiring about the foundations of thi ray, tvhich 1 a philosophical tak, However, given the patcubr pur pote of the present eat, we cannot completely by-pass the pi frophial problem. The world of eneylay ie fe Dot only taken for igrnted af tally by the ordinary member of aocety im the se feetively menningfl conduct of thet lives. Tei word that orig rater in their thoughts and actions, sod is maintained as rei by these. Before toning to our main task we must therefore, attempt to clarify the foundations of knowledge in evenay life, to wit, the objection ofsbjetve proces (and meanings) by which the Tierjetive commonsense world constucted. For the parpoe at hand, this i a petiminary task, and we can do mo more than sketch the main fates of what we Believe to be fn adequate soltion to the philosophical problem—adeyunte, let 1 hasten toa, only in the sense that it am serve ss stating point for sociological anlss. The considerations immediately fo Towing ate, therefore ofthe rato of phosophical prolegomena and in thenseves, presoilogcal. "The method we consider best fulted to clarify the foundations of knowledge ia everday lite is that of phenamenologial analysis, a purely deciptve method and, as soc, empieal” bot not “aclntife"—as we understand the na ture ofthe empitcl scenes "The phenomenolagal analysis of everday life, or rather of the subjectie expecence of evencay Ife, refrain from any causal of neti bypothess, 2s well as fom assertions aboot the ontalogal Status of the phenomena analaet. Te is important to remember i Commonsense contains innumerable pre-and qUstarenibe interpretations about everyday reality, whi it take for granted. Tf we ae to describe the reality of commonsense we mst eft Io these interpretations, jot a8 we must tke account of taken fore ‘granted character=but we do so within phenomenolgeal brackets ‘Consciousness always intentional, it alae intends of a rected toward objets. We can never apprchend some putative sab- statum of conounes such only eonsdousns of something ‘orcter. This i 30 regards of whether the abject of consciousness is experienced as Belonging to an external physi woe ot appr= Ihended a an element of an foward subjective reality. Whether 1 (the ist person singular, here a in the following statins, stending for ordinary slfconsoumnes in everyday fe) am view. ing the panorama of New York Cty or whether I Beoome conscoas cof an ime anit, the proses of consciousnes invaled are ite 'entonal in both instanets, The point need not be belabored that the comsciousnes of the Empie Stale Building diflers fom the arenes of ansicty, A'deiedphenomeolgal aalyss wool ‘uncover the various layes of experience, and the different struc tures of meaning involved in sap bing bitten bya dog remember. ing having been bitten by dog having» phobia sbou all Sos, and s0 forth. What interests us hee the emnmen intentional char deter of all onsciousnes. Different objets present themscves to consciousness con stitaents of diferent Spheres of reality. 1 recognize the flowmen 1 ‘ust dal wih inthe course of everyday ie at pstaining toa rity ‘quite diferent fom the disembodied Sgures that appr in. my ‘cams, The two sts of objects intedote quite diferent tensions into my consciousness and I am stentve to them in gut diferent ‘ways. My concious, then capable of moving through der ent spheres of reality. But diferent, 1 am consis ofthe wold 5 consisting of multiple cates At move fom one reality to nother, I experince the transition a2 ind of shock. Ths shock 4s to be understood as caused by the sift in atentivencs atthe transition entails, Waling up from a. dca iitrates ths shift most simply "Among the mulkiple realty thre is one tht pent itself 3s the realty par exectlece, This & the reality of everyday le, fe rlged potion entitles it to the dcigation of paramount = ality The tension of eonscioesns is highest fn verydny Tif hat the later impasse upon conousnes Inthe most massive, gent and intense manne. Tis impel to ignore eifcult ren to weaken in its imperative presence. Consequently, it frees me to be attentive toi inthe lest way. I experience everday fin the slate of being wideawake, This wideawake sate of exiting in sod pprchending the reiity of everyay ie taken by me to Be nermal i slevident that iy constitutes my natal atiode, 1 apprehend the reiity of everday life a an ordered rely, ts phenomena are preamanged in patent that scam to be inde pendent of my apprthension of them and that impose themes pon the later. The reality of everday life appear already objct- Fea that i conteted by an order of jess Chat Tave Been designate a objets before my appenance on the sen. The Tn tgmge used in every life eoninunuly provider me with the recesary obetifaions and pits the ower within which thee take sene and within which everday life fas meaning forte. 1 live in ples that i goeraphicalydesigatd:T employ tol, rom 28 opener to sports cars, which are designed in the techie vocabulary of my society I ive within a web of human elation, fom my ches lb tothe United Sats of Ameri, which ae alo ‘oxdeed by mess of yoeabulay In this manne language mas the coordinates of my life in society and 6s tat life with menningfl objet, EE ‘The reality of everyday life is organized around the “here” of my body and the “now” of my present. This “here and now” i the fecus of my attention tothe reality of everday ife. What is “here and now" presented to me in everyday life isthe realisimum of my ‘cnsiousness The reality of everday life isnot, however, exhausted by these immediate presences, but embraces phenorens that are rt present "here and now.” This means thot experince everyday Iie in tems of eifering degree of clorenere and remoteness, Both spatily snd tempor}: Clout to me i the 2008 of everyday ie that is diecly accesible to my bodily manipulation, This 2006 toatains the world within my reac, the world ia which I act s0 38 to modify i velit, ofthe wodd in which I work. In th world of ‘working my consclourness is dominated by the pragmatic mative, That iy my attention to tie world is mainly determined by what T 1am doing, have dove or plan to doin it. Im this way fi my wood pat excellence. I know, of course, thatthe realty of everyday life fontrine zones that ae not accesible to me in this manner’ But tither I ave no pragmati interest in these zones or my interes ia them is indret insofar a they may be, potcatally, mznfpaatve zones foe me. Typically, my interest inthe far ones isles intense ind extsnly ar argent. Tam intensely interste n the cluster of ‘objets involved in my daily occupations, the word of the ga- ‘age, if Tam a mechani. Iam interested, though les drety, in ‘what goes on jn the testing Iboratories of the automobile indttry in Defreit-l am unlikely ever to be in one of these laboratovies, but the work done there wil eventually afect my everyday life. T may alo be intrested in what goes on at Cape Kennedy or in outer space, but this interest isa. matter of paate, “isuretine” choice ‘athe than an urgent necessity of my everyday i ‘The reiity of everyday life firther presents itself to me as an in- texsbjetive word 2 word that share with ofhes. This inter iectvity sharply dierentates everyday We from ter ealities of ‘sick fam conscious Tam alone in the world of my dreams, but T ow thatthe word of everyday Wie is at real to athers 25 iti to isl Tndsed, T cannot ext in everyay life without continually interacting end communicating with others. 1 Know that my natu ral attitude to thie worl comesponds to the natural attitude of others, that they alo comprehend the objetifeations by which {his world is ordered, that they also organize this world around the “hare and now" of ther being init nd ave projets fr working ia OUNDATENE OF MOWLEDCE BY EVENT LITE 33 it. Tako bnow, of coun, that the others have 2 pespctive on this common world that i nok Wenticl wil mine. My "here is their “hes.* My “now” does not fully overlap with this. My projects Afr fom and may even confit with thes. A the sme, T know that I ive with them in a common word. Most inpotantly, I now that there isan ongoing corespondence between my meanings and their meanings inthis werd, that we share a common sense about ite elit. The nat atti i the atitude of commonsense con- sciousness precisely because it reer to a world that i common to ‘many men. Commonsense knowledge it the Loowledge 1 share ‘wth others in the noua, slfevdent routines of everyday life. ‘The reality of everyday life i taken for granted a reality. Tt oes sot requie additional verieation over and beyond its simple pe ‘nce. Iti simply ther, as sdfevdent and compeling factciy. 1 Eno that its eal. While ¥ am capable of engaging in doubt about its reality, 1am obliged to suspend such doubt asf roatinely ext in everyday life. This suspension of doubt i 0 frm that to abandon i a5 I might want to do, sy, im theoreti otlgous eoatemp tion, I have to make an extreme transition. The wed of everday Iie proclaims island, when I want to challenge the proclamation, mst engage in a deliberate, by no means cay eft. The tans tion from the natural attitede fo the theoretical atitade of the philosopher or sient astates this point. But aot all aspects of {this vealty ae equilly wnpeolematic. Everday hie is divided into sector that ae apprehended routinely, and others that present me ‘with poblems of one kind oe aothe. Suppose that Iam an 20m bile mechanic whois highly Knowledgeable about all American-made cas. Everything that pestains tothe later a routing, unproblen: atic facet of my everyday life. But one day someone spear the {ge and seks me to repair his Volwagen. Lam now compelled to enter the problematic world of foreignmade rr. Tay do so telus tantly or with profesional curiosity, but in ithe ease Tam now faced with problems that I have not yet rotinized. At the same time, of couse, I do not leave the velty of everyday life. Indeed, the later becomes enriched as I begin to incorporate into it the knowledge and skis required forthe repair of foreign made car ‘The eeality of everday life encompasses both Kinds of sectos, 25 long as what appears as a problem does not pertain to a diferent reality altogete (sn, the reality of Uneetieal phic, or of aight: Py ‘i soci consmnucriny OF REALITY mare). As Tong 38 the routines of everyday life continue without interupton they ae appended as unproblematic. ‘But even the unproblematic sector of eveeay realty i so only ‘ntl Further notice that 8, until As continu is interuptd by the Appearance of» problem. iWhen this happens the reality of every. ay He ses to Integrate the problematic sector into what & a ready unproblematic, Commonsense knowledge contains a varity ‘of instructions 2s to how this isto be done. For instane, the others ‘with whom T work are unproblematic to me as Tong ab they per form their familiar, tkeforgranted routins—say, ping away at eats nest to mine in my ofie, They become problematic If they interupt thee routines, huddling together in 2 corer and taking in whispers. A I ingice about the meaning of tis nasal activiy, there & a vavely of posites that my commonsense ‘nowleige is capable of reintegting into the unproblematic rou- tines of everday life: they may be consulting on how to Bea broken typewdter, oF one of them may have some urgent instructions from the bosy and so on. On the other hand, T may find that they are iseussing a union directive to go on strike, something as yet out- fide my experience but stil well within the range of problems with ‘which my commonsense Knowledge can deat wil deal with i, ‘hoogh, a problem, rather than simply centering ft into the unproblematic sector of everyday life. Tf, however, T come to the conclusion tht my colleagues have gone collectively mad, the peob- Jem that presents itself i of yet another kind. Yam now faced with 1 problem that transcends the boundaries ofthe reality of everyday life and points to an altogether diferent reality. Indeed, my con- clusion that my colleagues have gone mad impli igs facto that they have gone of into a word that ie no longer the common word of everday lie Compared to the reality of everyday life, other realities appeat as Snite provinces of mesning, enclaves within the peramoant realty marked by circumscribed meanings and modes of experince. The [amount reality envlops Shem on all sie, as it were, and con ‘iogsnssalwayr returns to the parsmont rility a5 from 30 ex cmon. This is evident from the iluctiatins aleady gven, ae in the realty of dreams or that of theoretical thought. Star “com. mutations” take place between the world of everyday life and the ‘wot af play, both the plying of cileen and, even more sharply, ‘of adults. The theater provides an excellent ‘station of such soUNDAMIOSE OF RMOWEEDGE MY EvERYDAY Lire a5 plying on the part of adults. The transition between seats is Inarkeby the sing and falling of the curtain As the curtain rss, the spectator is “transported to another word” with is own mean: ngs and an order that may or may not have much to do with the cde of everday life. As the curtain falls, the spectator “retums to reality” that i to the paramount teat’ of everyday life by com: parison with which the reality presented on the sage now appeas tenuows and ephemeral, however vivid the presentation may have been a few moments ‘previously. Aesthetic and. religious expe: ‘eos i chin producing transitions ofthis Kind nasmoch as at and religion are endemic peedocers of fit proviness of meaning, All finite provines of meaning ate characterized by a turing any of attention from the realty of everday life. Whi there are, ‘of couse, shifts in atention within everday Ie, the shi toa Bite Province of meanings ofa much more radial Kind. A radial change takes place in the tesion of conciousnes. In the contest of te Tigous experience this has been aplly called “leaping” It impor. tant to ses, howeve, that the realty of evenay life retain ite pramount status even as such “Tepe” take place. TF nothing else, Innguage makes sue of this. The common language avalable to ime forthe objectifation of my experiences is grounded in everyday Tite and keep pointing back toi even as I employ it to interpret experiences in Brite provinces of meaning, Type, therefore, 1 “alstor” the elity of the later a son as I begin to ws the om ‘mon language in interpreting them, that i, “transate” the non- everday experiences back into the paramount reality of everyday lite This may be readily seem in terms of dreams, but sso typical Of those tying to tepot about theoreti, sith or elions world of meaning, The theoretical! physic ells us that his eonecpt ‘of space cannot be conveyed linguistically, just as the artist docs ‘with regard to the meaning of is erations and the mystic with rogue to his encounters with the divine. Yet all these—dreamer, physics, artist and mystical Tie inthe ety of everday ie Indes, one of thee important probleme i to interpret the coext ce of this wealty with the reaity enclave fala WHE they have sented ‘The word of evenday life i structured both spatially and tem orally. The spatial suucture i quite peipheal to our present Considerations. Sufice it to point oot that ity too, bas 2 social imwasion by vitwe of the fact that my manipelatory 208 inter 6 ‘mar soa, cmsrRUCTON OF REALTY sc with Bat ten. More important for oor pst pape i the tomporl sctr fereyay ie “Temporaty iam inte property of cocoa. The seam of concious balay ode tempor It cyto a fect between difct lol of th Tempel ays ne ‘ubjetiely sata. Ever nda i onto ef an inns Bow af tine which in tm found on the psisogeal cyte Sf the pain thowh it tae ienal wih ee. Ie ald freatly eed the seope ofthe pleamena to trite thd ai of thot loel of iam temoriy. he we ‘oe inte, hove, embjctty eveay ie i han 8 enpont densi. The worl of every fe ns 3 on sted tie which enterbetly avn This tna ne may Be tndetoed as te itenton etwen coum ine an soely ‘Sabie cena bse on the tenponl sxqencs of wate Sd ionr tine, init fore mentioned ifentstions. Thre on aver be fill stacy beter these tatoos lee of emport Ios the eperenceo waiting ndats most cay. Bath my or {him andy scl impor ogo re ed vp my fete, etal soqunes oferta ice wating {may at fo ake fer in parts event, bt | mst wat for my based he ob Gr apn, T moet wok nt eran pape we poe! tat ‘my alison fo the event ay be obcallyabied Tt may rely be sem at the temporal store of remy ie ce ‘esingy comple esis the dfn level of empl pest ‘enpriy mst be only corel “Te poral sco veda econo me a a tity wth which T mas seton tht th ohh Tay fos Shot my oum projet encounter tne In ry rity 3 Continous sod fe All my eitencs in th word etna Sede by ite tended cveepd by My om if ee ‘dein the etry too sre of tne Te ns there eee Toes born sn wb thee afer? The Bowes of my Jnoitabe dnb mest te ite or eI ve nly 8 eta tant of time sable forthe reiation of my poe aed the lowly of this assay aide t thew poet. Ab, sine 1'd0 ot ‘want ti, this Krone nets ade Sey ito my pret Tht canotealenly repost my pat pation in sports ret | know tat Tam tig lee may ev Etim th bth nt ocean on which ne the chance fo po FOUNDATIONS OF KNOWLEDGE I MIRYOAY LiFe 37 ticipate. My waiting wil be anaious to the degree in which the i tod of te impinges upon the project. ‘The same temporal structure, a8 has aleady been indicated, is cotrcive. I cannot revene at wil the soqoence impored by it— “fist things fst” i an Gentil element of my Enowedge of every. ay life. Thus T cannot ake a cetain examination before [ave passed though certain eduationsl programs, I cannot pci my profesion before I have taken this examination, and 0 on. Als, the same temporal structure provides the history tat determines ny station inthe world of everyday life. I was bor on a certain ate, entered school on ancther, stated working as profesional ‘on another, and so on. Thest dats, however, ae all "locate within mach more comprehensive history, and this "ocation” dekively Shapes my situation, "Thus Twas bom in the year of the great bank sh in which my father lst his wealth, 1 entered school fast before the relation, I began to work js after the great war broke cout, and so forth, The tempor statute of everyday life nat only imposes prearanged sequences upon the “agenda” of aay single day but also imposes itself upon my biography at whole. Within the coatinates set by this temponl structure {apprehend both daily “agenda” and overll biography. Clock and calendar ensure that, indeed, [am a “man of my tine” Only within thi tempor] stv tre does everyday life retzin for me ity accent of eelty. Thus in cases where T-may be “disoriented” tor one reason or another (Gay, Thave been in an astomobie acedent in whieh 1 was knocked unconscious), I feel an almost instneive urge to “eoient” mse vithin the temporal structure of everday lf. I Took at my: watch and try to recall what day it. By the aes alone I reenter the reality of every life 2, SOCIAL INTERACTION IN EVERYDAY LIFE ‘The realty of everyday life & shared with others, But how are these others themselves experienced in everday life? Asin, possible to diferente between several modes Of such experince “The mest important experience of other takes place in the facetotace situation, which is the prototypical case of sci iter action: AN other caesar derivatives of In the facetoface situation the other is appreseted to me in 3 vivid present sae by Bot of wT Hoow that in the same wd Drsent [am append fo him. My and his “bere and now” con- tinwesly impinge on cach other a long 2 the facetoface sitvation contines. AS aout there is eontnuons interchange of mye reivity an hi Tate him sme, then reat to my own by sop- fing ie sie, then song again aT sme, and 0 on. Erty fspresion of mine erent toward him, and vice ves and this Continuo recpecy of expose acts simultencoly salable to both of us. This meres that, inthe facetoface station, the ters abet i rable tome through a maximum ofS toms. To be soe, I may misinterpret some of thee symptoms 1 ‘ay think thatthe other iy smiing wile intact he smiing Nevetcles, no other form of socal relating cam reprodce the plenitude of symptoms of sabjectvity present inthe factoface Situation, Only hee i the others subjcttyemphatially “ease” ‘A othe forms of vlting to the ater ag, a vanying degre, “e Ta the fcetoface station the othe is uly rl. Thirsty i pat ofthe over raity of everyday fe and a ich massive and fompling To be sr, another tay be rel tome witout 3 he ingenenaieed him fee to foce—by repstio, sy o By H- ing soresponded with hin. Neves he Domes cal toe in the falest sense of the word only when meet him face face. inden tay bested iat the oe: In the facetooce stuton moc el t0 me than I msl€ OF core I “know my Se bette” than fean ever kaw him. My subject ace to me ina way hit cn never be no matter how “lone” our elton: Ship. My puts aaable tome in memory nfl wth which {can neve estrct hi Bowerer much he may tel me abot Bat this “eter knowledge” of mal reqs rection. Tei not

    You might also like